Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1397 (RAJ)

Mustakim Mev v. State

2021-08-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No.546/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 354 IPC. 3. Learned counsel Shri D.S. Rathore representing the petitioner urges that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to a previous FIR filed by a girl from the petitioner s family against the complainant s brother in the year 2016. He thus urges that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. They urged that the previous FIR on which, the learned counsel representing the petitioner is harping upon was registered two years ago and thus, the same has no proximity or connection with the present FIR. 5. On a perusal of the factual report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is apparent that the statement of the victim Mst. T was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she has fortified the allegations levelled in the FIR. Thereafter, offences under Sections 341, 342 and 354 of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act have been found proved against the petitioner. As per Section 29 of the POCSO Act, when a person is prosecuted for committing, abating or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit, as the case may be, unless contrary proved. As the child victim has clearly stated that the offences under Section 7 and 8 were committed with her, there is no reason to doubt the said statement on the theory of counterblast so as to quash the impugned FIR. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not prejudice the trial of the case. 7. Thus, the misc. petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.